tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post2599254816725522852..comments2008-09-24T01:35:11.373-07:00Wesley J. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00087063614354714652wjs@wesleyjsmith.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-43285317423501258962008-09-24T01:35:00.000-07:002008-09-24T01:35:00.000-07:00Wesley, it would be interesting to see study results for other types of cancer, not just that of the lungs. I would wonder whether lung cancer has a stigma among medical providers that other types of cancer would not.<BR/><BR/>Most doctors would probably point to smoking tobacco as being the primary cause of the lung cancer cases they treat. They might therefore have less empathy for patients with that particular malignancy, in the belief that the patient likely brought it upon himself from a habit that has been the subject of health warnings since the World War I era 90 years ago. So maybe these doctors are in fact more indifferent in manner to lung cancer patients where other types of cancer would arouse more sympathy.<BR/><BR/>Side note: in early 1993, just before I left the job I had then (which is why I remember the time period), National Public Radio had a segment on one of its daily news programs on a Washington, DC-area doctor who had decided that he would no longer see patients who smoked. He said that if they choose to keep that habit despite all the health warnings, meaning that they really didn't care about their health, then why should he expend any effort to keep them healthy himself? This not only ties in with the attitude above, but with your warnings about futile care theory and the like. He had a point, but--brrr!K-Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06339236605900186222noreply@blogger.com